I recently listen to some experts talk about job creation. I have thought for some time that most of what is offered about job creation is naive nonsense. Here's why.
First a bit of history. Consider farm jobs. Today there are less than half as many farm jobs as there were in 1900. That's fact. Why? It turns out that two factors drove that change. Better farming practices, better seeds, better fertilizer, a better understanding of how to farm had a major impact. The other and more significant driver was automation, better farm machinery. This is an example of jobs where there is no realistic possibility of bringing these jobs back. Farmers are simply not going to abandon the machines that make modern farming work. Those jobs are gone and are not coming back.
The impact of automation can be seen elsewhere in the economy. Consider that over the last 25 years US manufactured goods exports have more quadrupled! Meanwhile the portion manufacturing jobs to all jobs in the US has dropped by more than 50%. Simply put, automation has meant that fewer people produce much more product. Manufacturers are simply not going to abandoned efficient competitive practices to create new jobs. The manufacturing jobs replaced by automation are simply gone and are not coming back. That said it should be noted that manufacturing jobs are in fact growing particularly among small manufacturers as manufactured goods exports continue to grow particularly among free trade partners.
To date, automation has substituted machinery for human labor as in farming or sell structured activity as in assembly lines. We are now starting to see automation impact less well structured jobs. Machine shops are a good example. There are several machine shops near my home that now employ less than half as many machinist as they once did since adopting CNC machine tools that allow a single person to do the work of many even when that work is both highly skilled and less well structured. Those jobs are gone. Work in that segment will require new skills in CNC tool use and growth in the demand for low volume CNC manufacturing.
There is a new and dramatically more disruptive automation on the horizon. Several firms are testing self driving cars. The impact of this technology goes well beyond professional drivers in two ways. First it promises to be disruptive of the transportation infrastructure generally. Why should I take a train when I can use a self driving car to go directly from where I am to where I want to go? For that matter why should I even own a car when one will come for me when I need it?
Second, and more importantly, it is an example of automation of a highly unstructured activity! If you can make a self driving car operating in a mixed ill structured world what then can not be automated?
All of this raises the issue of what happens when there are simply not enough jobs for those that want or need to work? Society has been organized around work for almost all of human history. What happens when work as an organizing principle is no longer essential?
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Showing posts with label POV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POV. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business
Came across this today.
How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business
It got to thinking about the internet, reality, and Trump voters. I posted this comment.
How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business
It got to thinking about the internet, reality, and Trump voters. I posted this comment.
Trumplandia internet users ... Several things about the internet that you need to know. First, most of what you learn from the internet is simply untrue. Second, most of what is left is biased, self serving, and devoid of context to the point of being intentional distortion. Finally, there is much of value. But here's the thing, you have to take the trouble to actually check facts and think critically. Other than that you are at best engaging in self delusion. Just saying.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Blowing smoke is not a substitute for reason or rationality.
CNN Panel: Jeffrey Lord Tries to MINIMIZE Trump's China Blunder, "SO WHAT?"
During this video Mr Lord made several arguments.
First, he argued that others presidents made changes and then proceeded to offer a series of false equivalencies trying to justify Mr Trump's most recent blunder in foreign relations. It's important to note that such equivalencies are intended to distract from the actions of someone who is clearly unqualified.
Second, he argued that America voted 'to do things differently' and that America wanted this sort of 'differently'. There are a number of problems with this entirely specious argument. To begin with several million more America voters actually voted for Ms Clinton than voted for Mr Trump. Trump doesn't have a 'mandate' that can justify any and all acts.
Beyond that is the issue of 'what change'. Mr Lord would have you accept the proposition that the desired change includes these sort of actions. But is that true or is it more likely true that voters wanted a government that worked for the good of all not just big money and big business.
Third, later Lord offered the observation that 'we tried it your way and government is a mess'. While it is certainly true that most Americans think government is a mess based on numerous opinion polls is it true that 'we tried it your way'? In fact it is not. For much of the last several presidencies we have government by obstruction where a small group of politicians, more often than not radical right Republicans, have adopted a 'my way or the highway' style of politics including actually shutting down the Federal government. In that environment the country has become essentially ungovernable and no President got their 'way'.
Specious unthinking and uncritical arguments such as Mr Lord makes are part of the problem. They are not about reality or policy. They simply promote the dysfunctional view that this is about two teams driven by emotion. America deserves better.
Just saying.
Friday, December 2, 2016
Why I am concerned for America's future
I have voted in 14 presidential elections. I have voted for Republicans. I have voted for Democrats. I have voted for Independents. I have written in a candidate. On two occasions I voted for a major party nominee that I thought was actually a good choice for President. More often than not I have held my nose and voted for the less bad of two candidates. More often than not I voted for the loosing candidate. On two occasions I watched the voters elect a seriously bad President and watched as the most severe economic recession occurred.
For all of this I have not feared for the future of America. Our society is generally educated. Our principles are extremely progressive and inclusive. Most Americans at least say they support those principles. Our economy is large and strong enough to survive even extreme mismanagement and disruption.
But in this election something fundamental has changed. We have elected someone who clearly does not believe in American principles. A man who is unable to govern his own emotions. Someone who is not just racist (we've had racist presidents before) in private but racist in public. Someone who can not distinguish between his own delusional wishful thinking and reality. We have elected a pathological liar unable to be truthful when the truth would serve as well as a lie. Someone completely enamored of his own importance. Someone who is not just unfit or unqualified but someone who is actually dangerous.
Like many Americans I hoped, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, that in the process of forming a government Trump would choose people that while holding different views than I do at least held arguably rational reasonable views. That he might actually be an agent of change and appoint people committed to what is good for the American public. Enough appointments have now been announced that it is now entirely clear that this is not so. Rather it is clear that the same policies and people that created the problems America faces remain in positions of power.
I have watched as over the last 30 years we have abandoned the politics of policy and turned to the politics of party. As we have abandoned the notion that government should act to the benefit of the governed and bought into the absurd obscene notion that government's principle function is to support big business. As we have bought in yet again to the notion that somehow trickle down economics works to benefit the average person; never mind that we have tried it several times and it just doesn't work. I have watched as we changed American tax policy to favor big business and the wealthy arguing that that's good for the rest of us; never mind that we keep doing it and the result is wealth inequality that historically leads to societal collapse.
That's why I am concerned. That's why you should have a good think and decide if you are also concerned.
Just saying.
For all of this I have not feared for the future of America. Our society is generally educated. Our principles are extremely progressive and inclusive. Most Americans at least say they support those principles. Our economy is large and strong enough to survive even extreme mismanagement and disruption.
But in this election something fundamental has changed. We have elected someone who clearly does not believe in American principles. A man who is unable to govern his own emotions. Someone who is not just racist (we've had racist presidents before) in private but racist in public. Someone who can not distinguish between his own delusional wishful thinking and reality. We have elected a pathological liar unable to be truthful when the truth would serve as well as a lie. Someone completely enamored of his own importance. Someone who is not just unfit or unqualified but someone who is actually dangerous.
Like many Americans I hoped, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, that in the process of forming a government Trump would choose people that while holding different views than I do at least held arguably rational reasonable views. That he might actually be an agent of change and appoint people committed to what is good for the American public. Enough appointments have now been announced that it is now entirely clear that this is not so. Rather it is clear that the same policies and people that created the problems America faces remain in positions of power.
I have watched as over the last 30 years we have abandoned the politics of policy and turned to the politics of party. As we have abandoned the notion that government should act to the benefit of the governed and bought into the absurd obscene notion that government's principle function is to support big business. As we have bought in yet again to the notion that somehow trickle down economics works to benefit the average person; never mind that we have tried it several times and it just doesn't work. I have watched as we changed American tax policy to favor big business and the wealthy arguing that that's good for the rest of us; never mind that we keep doing it and the result is wealth inequality that historically leads to societal collapse.
That's why I am concerned. That's why you should have a good think and decide if you are also concerned.
Just saying.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Are we witnessing freedom?
A friend recently posted:
What we are witnessing is OLIGARCHY. What we are witnessing is 46% of the electorate so disengaged or fed up that they do not vote. What we are witnessing is governance by the unelected where for the second time in recent years a majority favored the candidate that was NOT elected and we get government by the unelected because of an arcane set of laws that have no place in today's world. What we are witnessing is a political elite that claims a mandate to continue policies that brought us the second greatest economic collapse in American history even though they received support from less than 25% of the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when the country's Congress has an 11% approval rating. What we are witnessing is what happens when government at the federal and in many cases the state level has failed the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when people are so fed up, so disillusioned with their government that they resort to protest.
Rioting is not OK. But here's the thine, if you want a free government that works for you and me and the rest of us, you not only have a right to protest; you have an obligation to do so. You have an obligation to involve yourself to oppose the oligarchy that proposes to continue policies that have not worked. You have an obligation to support efforts and candidates that will address the very real problems America faces.
What we are witnessing in the USA is called freedom. Embrace it. Love/Hate. For/Against. Liberal/Conservative. Right/Left.But is this freedom? For my part I do not think so. What we are witnessing is NOT freedom. NOT even close.
What we are witnessing is OLIGARCHY. What we are witnessing is 46% of the electorate so disengaged or fed up that they do not vote. What we are witnessing is governance by the unelected where for the second time in recent years a majority favored the candidate that was NOT elected and we get government by the unelected because of an arcane set of laws that have no place in today's world. What we are witnessing is a political elite that claims a mandate to continue policies that brought us the second greatest economic collapse in American history even though they received support from less than 25% of the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when the country's Congress has an 11% approval rating. What we are witnessing is what happens when government at the federal and in many cases the state level has failed the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when people are so fed up, so disillusioned with their government that they resort to protest.
Rioting is not OK. But here's the thine, if you want a free government that works for you and me and the rest of us, you not only have a right to protest; you have an obligation to do so. You have an obligation to involve yourself to oppose the oligarchy that proposes to continue policies that have not worked. You have an obligation to support efforts and candidates that will address the very real problems America faces.
If you and I fail to do so, if we continue to believe that voting once every two years is enough, then you can be sure that nothing will change.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
A few thoughts from a veteran
I am a veteran. You do not owe me anything special for I have enjoyed the many many many benefits of living in America.
I am a veteran. There is sadly nothing special about that for I am one of many many many who are.
It saddens me that this is so.
I am a veteran. If you want to respect our service actually work to build a just and fair America that works for everyone not just the wealthy and powerful for that is why I and many many many like me served.
I am a veteran. I am not a pacifist. Even so I dream of a time when there are no more of us for there are no more wars.
If you wish to honor our service, make such service unnecessary.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans:
As noted in an earlier post, societies with disproportionate wealth distributions, as is now the case in the United States, are subject to social instability and occasional revolution. Tax policies that result in a handful of families with more wealth than over 100 million families violates any sense of fairness and common sense. Yet, a segment of the radical right believes that tax policies that favor the wealthy will lead to more wealth for everyone. Never mind that that hasn't worked the last two times it was tried. Common Sense thinks that policy needs to support the poor and grow the middle class not make the wealthy wealthier. That's just common sense if you want a healthy society.
As noted in an earlier post, societies with disproportionate wealth distributions, as is now the case in the United States, are subject to social instability and occasional revolution. Tax policies that result in a handful of families with more wealth than over 100 million families violates any sense of fairness and common sense. Yet, a segment of the radical right believes that tax policies that favor the wealthy will lead to more wealth for everyone. Never mind that that hasn't worked the last two times it was tried. Common Sense thinks that policy needs to support the poor and grow the middle class not make the wealthy wealthier. That's just common sense if you want a healthy society.
Monday, July 2, 2012
When ideological purity trumps common sense
Republicans’ repeal push: Is it the right move? - The Washington Post:
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
“I will act to repeal Obamacare,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on Friday.
“We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety,” House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation”.
“If I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of Obamacare will be job one,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on “Fox News Sunday”.
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
(Reuters) - Florida will not implement two provisions of the U.S. healthcare law involving an expansion of Medicaid for the poor and creation of a private insurance exchange, Governor Rick Scott said on Sunday.
Two other states with Republican governors, Wisconsin and Louisiana, opted out of the two provisions last week in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
When is privacy not privacy
Recently I received this email from TurboTax.
By way of setting context, TurboTax is a great product, witness their market share. I've used it for several years and been reasonably satisified.
But is this reasonable privacy? On first reading it might seem OK but what it doesn't say raises some issues. This policy doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my data, only that it will not explicitly identify it as belonging to me. It doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my email address. It doesn't say that TurboTax won't aggregate my data to identify the town I live in or the street I live on as appropriate for some purpose.
Common Sense wonders, when is privacy not private?
| |||||
and we want to share our privacy statement with you.But is this reasonable privacy? On first reading it might seem OK but what it doesn't say raises some issues. This policy doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my data, only that it will not explicitly identify it as belonging to me. It doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my email address. It doesn't say that TurboTax won't aggregate my data to identify the town I live in or the street I live on as appropriate for some purpose.
Common Sense wonders, when is privacy not private?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
SOPA/PIPA, Statistics & Common Sense Humor
Common Sense often wonders when statistics are bantered about. DO they make any sense at all? If you put them in a bag, drop the bag on the floor and it splits, what's the smell like? Once in a while someone pokes some well deserved humor at the bizarre claims that are all to common. Here's one worth a few minutes.
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod - YouTube:
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod - YouTube:
Interesting President Obama fact check
PolitiFact | Fact-checking the Obama campaign film:
The radical right has been an unending source of nonsense for Common Sense. But now, as President Obama begins to campaign for re-election more seriously it's only fair to examine his campaign statements. Courtesy of PolitiFact.com (it should be must reading for every voter) an interesting examination of The Road We've Traveled, a Davis Guggenheim documentary on President Obama. So far the score is one Mostly True and one Mostly False. While Common Sense would hope for and, indeed, expect better it's not bad at all in this political season when distortions so gross as to rise to lying are common.
While Common Sense is in the area here's the current Obama Meter (more details via the link).
Common Sense thinks facts trump distorted rhetoric and mindless faith. After all, reality has the special quality of being, well, real. That's just common sense.
The radical right has been an unending source of nonsense for Common Sense. But now, as President Obama begins to campaign for re-election more seriously it's only fair to examine his campaign statements. Courtesy of PolitiFact.com (it should be must reading for every voter) an interesting examination of The Road We've Traveled, a Davis Guggenheim documentary on President Obama. So far the score is one Mostly True and one Mostly False. While Common Sense would hope for and, indeed, expect better it's not bad at all in this political season when distortions so gross as to rise to lying are common.
While Common Sense is in the area here's the current Obama Meter (more details via the link).
Rating their promises
Common Sense thinks facts trump distorted rhetoric and mindless faith. After all, reality has the special quality of being, well, real. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Democracy v. Primary Elections: Why primaries are undemocratic
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Vote Count:
Super Tuesday is over and the Republican primary process continues with Mr. Romney ahead in delegates and behind in the popular vote raising the obvious questions: Is the primary process democratic? Does it yield the candidate that represents the majority view?
The short common sense answers are no, the process is not democratic and it does not yield a candidate that represents the majority view. The facts are simple enough. After 22 primaries here are the results:
Some 59% of Republican primary voters want someone other than Mr. Romney yet these candidates have only 46% of the delegates. Clearly not democratic, at least in-so-far as the delegate count doesn't reflect the popular vote. Even more clearly, Mr. Romney doesn't represent the majority view.
There are several reasons for this.
Primaries are dominated by the most active party members. These activist do not necessarily represent the party majority. In the specific case of the Republican primaries it seems all but certain that the radical conservative and religious right are disproportionately active.
Three of these primaries are winner take all contest. In particular, Florida with its 50 delegates distorts the results. Winner take all election systems inherently lead to disparities between popular and electoral counts.
There are a number of other voting systems that are both more democratic and more likely to yield a representative candidate. There's an interesting article here.
Some years ago Common Sense was at a large party and asked What was the last time you voted for a presidential candidate you actually supported as opposed to the least objectionable candidate? The results were disheartening with most having to go back many many elections to find a candidate that they actually supported.
The central point here is that the system the political parties use to select candidates is seriously broken and Common Sense thinks it should be changed.
Super Tuesday is over and the Republican primary process continues with Mr. Romney ahead in delegates and behind in the popular vote raising the obvious questions: Is the primary process democratic? Does it yield the candidate that represents the majority view?
The short common sense answers are no, the process is not democratic and it does not yield a candidate that represents the majority view. The facts are simple enough. After 22 primaries here are the results:
| Romney | Santorum | Gingrich | Paul | Total | |
| Popular vote | 3179444 | 1948574 | 1818413 | 896392 | 7842823 |
| % Popular vote | 41% | 25% | 23% | 11% | |
| Delegates | 381 | 160 | 101 | 61 | 703 |
| % Delegates | 54% | 23% | 14% | 9% |
Some 59% of Republican primary voters want someone other than Mr. Romney yet these candidates have only 46% of the delegates. Clearly not democratic, at least in-so-far as the delegate count doesn't reflect the popular vote. Even more clearly, Mr. Romney doesn't represent the majority view.
There are several reasons for this.
Primaries are dominated by the most active party members. These activist do not necessarily represent the party majority. In the specific case of the Republican primaries it seems all but certain that the radical conservative and religious right are disproportionately active.
Three of these primaries are winner take all contest. In particular, Florida with its 50 delegates distorts the results. Winner take all election systems inherently lead to disparities between popular and electoral counts.
There are a number of other voting systems that are both more democratic and more likely to yield a representative candidate. There's an interesting article here.
Some years ago Common Sense was at a large party and asked What was the last time you voted for a presidential candidate you actually supported as opposed to the least objectionable candidate? The results were disheartening with most having to go back many many elections to find a candidate that they actually supported.
The central point here is that the system the political parties use to select candidates is seriously broken and Common Sense thinks it should be changed.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The radical conservative right and common sense: Rick Santorum
Rich Santorum, republican candidate for the parties presidential nominee, has been much in the news the last few days.
Part 1: Separation of church and state from ABC's This Week on Feb. 26, 2012.
Not even Newt Gingrich agrees with this bit of nonsense saying according to the AP
You can read the speech for yourself here and decide for yourself. In this case Common Sense and Mr. Gingrich agree, the speech goes to the duty of the president not the participation of people of faith in government. Perhaps Mr Santorum had allowed his pursuit of the radical religious right to overcome common sense and truth.
Part 2: President Obama and college.
Part 1: Separation of church and state from ABC's This Week on Feb. 26, 2012.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?
SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.
This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison—
Not even Newt Gingrich agrees with this bit of nonsense saying according to the AP
Gingrich and Santorum, each a Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, view Kennedy's words differently. Santorum says he felt sick after reading Kennedy's 1960 speech and believes it advocated absolute separation of church and state.
Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech." He told Fox News Channel on Tuesday that Kennedy was reassuring voters that he wouldn't obey any foreign religious leader. Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that's correct."
You can read the speech for yourself here and decide for yourself. In this case Common Sense and Mr. Gingrich agree, the speech goes to the duty of the president not the participation of people of faith in government. Perhaps Mr Santorum had allowed his pursuit of the radical religious right to overcome common sense and truth.
Part 2: President Obama and college.
"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college,"Santorum said. "What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard everyday and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."The problem here is that President Obama simply didn't say this. In fact what he's said repeatedly is a) those who want to go to college should be able to afford to, and b) high school graduates should be encouraged to go to college. In case there's any doubt here's what he said on Feb 27th:
The issue received such attention that Obama on Feb. 27 addressed the issue obliquely, telling the National Governors Association that "the jobs of the future are increasingly going to those with more than a high school degree. And I have to make a point here. When I speak about higher education, we’re not just talking about a four-year degree. We’re talking about somebody going to a community college and getting trained for that manufacturing job that now is requiring somebody walking through the door, handling a million-dollar piece of equipment. And they can’t go in there unless they’ve got some basic training beyond what they received in high school. We all want Americans getting those jobs of the future. So we’re going to have to make sure that they’re getting the education that they need."
It should be noted that Mr Santorum has an undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University, an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a law degree from the Dickinson School of Law. His wife, Karen, has a number of college degrees and is both an attorney and nurse.
Clearly Mr Santorum believes in education for himself, his wife, and presumably his children. Why then does he grossly misrepresent Obama's views? Could it be a completely crass attempt to appeal to blue collar Michigan voters who used to be able to get a good job making autos, never mind that those jobs are increasingly scarce? Perhaps Mr Santorum has allowed his desire to win in Michigan to trump the simple reality that good jobs in the future will increasingly require more than a high school education.
Part 3: College kills faith.
STEPHANOPOULOS: All he said was he wants, quote, "every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training." In your interview with Glenn Beck this week, you seemed to go further. You said I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because they are indoctrination mills. What did that mean?
SANTORUM: Well, of course. I mean, you look at the colleges and universities, George. This is not – this is not something that's new for most Americans, is how liberal our colleges and universities are and how many children in fact are – look, I've gone through it. I went through it at Penn State. You talk to most kids who go to college who are conservatives, and you are singled out, you are ridiculed, you are – I can tell you personally, I know that, you know, we – I went through a process where I was docked for my conservative views. This is sort of a regular routine (ph). You know the statistic that at least I was familiar with from a few years ago -- I don't know if it still holds true but I suspect it may even be worse – that 62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it.
Turns out it's just not true according to a report published last year in The Review of Religious Research and based on a 1998 study. According to the study:
The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations, 2011:While education has a positive effect on switching religious affiliations, particularly to mainline denominations and “other” religious traditions, it is unrelated to religious disaffiliation. Education also has a positive effect on religious participation, emphasizing the importance of religion, and supporting the rights of religious authorities to influence people’s votes.
Summary
So what do these recent events mean? What do they say about the radical religious right? About Mr. Santorum?
Clearly reality and facts simply do not support Mr. Santorum's views. To the degree that these views reflect conservative religious views, those views are not based on reality or facts.
Common Sense believes that when any group ignores reality, ignores facts, or distorts to the degree these events exhibit they loose any legitimacy. They loose any claim on a place in reasoned political discourse. To this degree, they are their own worst enemy.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Republican Primary: Politics and Farce
Common Sense took a bit of a break while the Republican primary has been providing no end of entertainment. On the off chance that anyone in the United States has missed the republican primary farce here's a brief synopsis: My opponent is bad; I'm good; Obama is bad; the Democrats are responsible for all the countries ills; the Republicans can fix all the countries ills. That farce is pretty much it for political dialog.
On a positive note the Republican field has shrunk. The Tea Party queen is gone. Likewise, the pizza king. John Huntsman, who arguably had some qualifications, could hardly draw a crowd and has quit. The tall Texan afflicted with hoof in mouth disease and unable to remember the three, er five, government agencies he'd eliminate finally gave up.
With the cast shrunk one would think that the farce would suffer. Not so. We still have Ron Paul, who continues to deliver some interesting and some wacko ideas. While he has no real prospect of being nominated he continues on. Staunch conservative, Fox news commentator, and darling of religious conservatives Rick Santorum has discovered that there is some truth in the old adage about nice guys and last. We are left with front runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney to demonstrate that he who has the most money gets to be the nominee. By that measure it will certainly be Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee.
Common Sense thinks that this is no way for a representative democracy to go about the process of selecting nominees for the presidency. There are certainly much better qualified Republicans that former House Speaker Gingrich who thinks that we are all foolish enough to believe the fantasy that he was retained by Freddie Mac and paid 1.6 million as a historian not a lobbyist. Of course that's not the least of his baggage, but hey we've all got short memories. Alternatively, we have former governor Mitt Romney who wants to be president so bad that he believed in health care reform in Massachusetts but now that he's a candidate and has to answer to the radical right doesn't believe in it for the USA.
At root of this farce is a profoundly flawed two party system where radical elements and big money drive politics. Common Sense thinks that there needs to be a better way. There needs to be a third party that represents the center and common sense.
On a positive note the Republican field has shrunk. The Tea Party queen is gone. Likewise, the pizza king. John Huntsman, who arguably had some qualifications, could hardly draw a crowd and has quit. The tall Texan afflicted with hoof in mouth disease and unable to remember the three, er five, government agencies he'd eliminate finally gave up.
With the cast shrunk one would think that the farce would suffer. Not so. We still have Ron Paul, who continues to deliver some interesting and some wacko ideas. While he has no real prospect of being nominated he continues on. Staunch conservative, Fox news commentator, and darling of religious conservatives Rick Santorum has discovered that there is some truth in the old adage about nice guys and last. We are left with front runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney to demonstrate that he who has the most money gets to be the nominee. By that measure it will certainly be Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee.
Common Sense thinks that this is no way for a representative democracy to go about the process of selecting nominees for the presidency. There are certainly much better qualified Republicans that former House Speaker Gingrich who thinks that we are all foolish enough to believe the fantasy that he was retained by Freddie Mac and paid 1.6 million as a historian not a lobbyist. Of course that's not the least of his baggage, but hey we've all got short memories. Alternatively, we have former governor Mitt Romney who wants to be president so bad that he believed in health care reform in Massachusetts but now that he's a candidate and has to answer to the radical right doesn't believe in it for the USA.
At root of this farce is a profoundly flawed two party system where radical elements and big money drive politics. Common Sense thinks that there needs to be a better way. There needs to be a third party that represents the center and common sense.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Severe weather phone calls
The town I live in has a phone warning system for severe weather and other disasters. It's a fairly common arrangement in this area and makes a good deal of common sense on the face of it.
Comes today when there is some severe weather in Massachusetts that includes a couple of tornadoes that touch down. The first NWS TV broadcast was around 4:30 or so in plenty of time to let people know that there might be an issue. Mind you, there was plenty of thunder and lightning so you'd have to be def and blind not to know. So I check with NECN, the regional cable news that has a VERY enthusiastic weather man given to detailed ongoing weather coverage. I watch for a bit and find that the storms are tracking toward my town. They are still a good ways away and, fortunately, hook and track well south of us by about 5:30 or so.
Now at 6:05 I get an emergency notification call from the town's emergency alert system that a) the NWS has issued a tornado warning that includes Sudbury (btw, it never did) starting at 5:00 and that the storm is expected to arrive about 6:08. That's great right? Three minutes warning for something that actually happened 35 minutes ago! Not to worry though the town has my best interest at heart and call again at 6:18 with the same message.
At some level it's a case of no harm no foul as the storm went south of us. But really what would have happened if it hadn't? Common Sense suggests that for an emergency alert system to work it is necessary that it provide timely and accurate warning. Warnings 65 minutes after the NWS issued them, 35 minutes after the event would have occurred, and then again 78 minutes after the original NWS warning doesn't work and doesn't make common sense. Surely the town can and should do better.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
House Republicans to hold vote on debt limit increase – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
The politics of grid lock is clearly in full sway. So lets get this straight, under Congressional rules in the House, the speaker, in this case Mr Boehner, controls what can come to a vote. He also controls the Republican caucus and can influence, often to the point of controlling, how elected representatives vote. You remember the notion of elected where voters elect someone that is suppose to represent the will of the electorate as distinct from the will of Mr Boehner or the Republican party. So Mr Boehner having instructed the Republican caucus NOT to vote for this measure even knowing full well that not extending the debt ceiling is a non starter brings this measure to a vote. Why? This is political theater at its worst. It's not about the debt ceiling. It's certainly not about good governance. One thing it clearly shows is that the two party system and Congressional rules are seriously broken.Image by Getty Images via @daylifeHouse Republicans to hold vote on debt limit increase – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs: "Washington (CNN) – House Republican leaders have scheduled a vote next week to raise the debt limit without any spending cuts attached in order to demonstrate that a so-called 'clean extension' preferred by President Barack Obama and some congressional Democrats cannot pass in the GOP-majority chamber.
According to several aides, GOP leaders announced the move Tuesday at their regular weekly meeting with rank and file Republicans.
The Republican proposal, sponsored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, would raise the Treasury's borrowing authority by $2.4 trillion, which is the same amount in Obama's proposed budget, and would give the Treasury Department the authority to continue paying its bills through December 2012.
The vote is not expected to get any Republican support, dooming its chances of winning House approval."
Here is a common sense notion, perhaps we shouldn't pay Congress when they engage in this sort of political theater since they are clearly not working for the American voters.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Piracy of Intelectual Property is Illegal and Has Consequences
Feds Seize 8 More Domains in Piracy Crackdown | Threat Level | Wired.com:
Common Sense says about time. Copyrights matter and illegal is illegal. That's just common sense.
By David Kravets Email Author
May 23, 2011 |
The Department of Homeland Security seized at least eight website addresses over the weekend, bringing to 128 the number of domains confiscated as part of a government piracy crackdown.
The government is taking the sites with court approval, under the same civil seizure law the government invokes to seize brick-and-mortar drug houses, bank accounts and other property tied to illegal activity.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Birth Certificate Mug
Donate | Donate: "Get your 2012 Made in the USA mug
Stay caffeinated for campaign events (and everything else) with a limited-edition Made in the USA mug. Donate $15 or more to get yours."
What can Common Sense add? Pure American kitsch. Now if we could only get Vince from Shamwow to promote them this bit of nonsense would be perfect.
Of course you'll also need your copy of "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be Presidenthere's the Birth Certificate," really! Who says politics isn't fun! That's just common sense.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Poll: Americans as unhappy as ever with Congress - USATODAY.com
Image via WikipediaPoll: Americans as unhappy as ever with Congress - USATODAY.com: "WASHINGTON — Americans voted to turn over control of the House of Representatives to Republicans last fall, but a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds they remain as unhappy as they have ever been with Capitol Hill."By more than 2-1, voters say most members of Congress don't deserve re-election, matching a historic low reached last spring. Twenty-eight percent say most members should get another term in office; 63% say most should be replaced.
Feverish discontent with Congress last year fueled the conservative Tea Party movement and cost Democrats their hold on the House. The levels of dyspepsia are higher than they were just before elections in 1994, 2006 and 2010, all years when control changed hands.
So what do you think, do the Tea Party congressmen have a mandate? How about the Republicans or Democrats? Guess not.
Common Sense has frequently commented on our dysfunctional Congress and continues to believe it should be replaced, preferably with citizens that have some common sense and are neither Republicans or Democrats. Those fools have had plenty of chances to govern reasonably and have failed rather stunningly. Makes a fair bit of common sense that a different way should be tried.
Sharing Information Corrupts Wisdom of Crowds | Wired Science | Wired.com
Sharing Information Corrupts Wisdom of Crowds | Wired Science | Wired.com: "When people can learn what others think, the wisdom of crowds may veer towards ignorance.Ever wonder why the birther idiocy had such traction? How about ancient aliens or the Bermuda triangle? Gives one to wonder if we will all become stupid when subject to a steady diet of doubtful surveys, misrepresentations and outright lies from politicians, and sundry other foolishness from the Internet and TV. It might be a good common sense idea to actually think about things before forming opinions. Just a common sense thought.
In a new study of crowd wisdom — the statistical phenomenon by which individual biases cancel each other out, distilling hundreds or thousands of individual guesses into uncannily accurate average answers — researchers told test participants about their peers’ guesses. As a result, their group insight went awry.
“Although groups are initially ‘wise,’ knowledge about estimates of others narrows the diversity of opinions to such an extent that it undermines” collective wisdom, wrote researchers led by mathematician Jan Lorenz and sociologist Heiko Rahut of Switzerland’s ETH Zurich, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on May 16. “Even mild social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect.”"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)